I remember when he was president for like six months I went to this party with a bunch of liberal hipster kids and almost got into a fight.

I don't remember what they all were exactly [bubble bubble bubble] but I think I loudly proclaimed that he was a proven Stooge of the Plutocracy (TM) by his first three actions.

I think they were: the auto bailout on the backs of both the American taxpayer AND the UAW; the "socialized" medicine plan that cuts into Medicare spending and taxes the "cadillac plans" of unionized workers to profit the blood-sucking vampire insurance industry; the continuance of America's imperialist wars of domination and plunder in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But I might be wrong. I can hardly remember last week, let alone three years ago.

I personally like Obama. I'm not naive enough to think that there is ever going to be a politician who's actions I agree with 100%, but I think his intentions are in the right place, and he's at least trying to set things straight. He's made moves in the right direction concerning the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I personally think his health care plan is a move in the right direction, though a more socialized version would sit better with me.

All that being said, it is very difficult to have an honest discussion of Obama's performance RE: the economy when we have a republican majority in Congress basically operating on the policy of "I'm going to take my ball and go home." Personally, I think we should arrest all politicians (and lobbyists, while we're at it), while they are in jail hold emergency elections funded entirely on public money, and make some steps towards a government that is truly working towards the interest of their constituents rather than their bank accounts.

Basically, Obama is a figurehead, as is every other politician. It's the capital that is backing them that really makes the decisions, and due to the effed up situation with campaign funding every politician in this country ends up beholden to special interests, relying on the business funded propaganda machine that put them in power to win them re-election. If anything is truly broken in this country it is our electoral system and the media machine that perpetuates this system.

As the last thread was locked (for no discernible reason imo), please discuss extra politely.

Yes, for no reason aside from personal. I see this thread no different than the one speaking about gay marriage. Is it 1984 yet?

I believe the economy SHOULD be talked about vs "values" b/c people on the left including President Obama know the economy stinks.
I agree that values are important, but I don't think that Obama's "values" are anything like most Americans' values.

From inauguration day:

Over 1 million more Unemployed Americans.
Unemployement rate close to 9%.
Gas prices up over 80%.
Federal debt up 43%.
College tuitions up 25%.
Workers health insurance cost up 20%.
Food stamp recipient up 45%.
Over 6 Million more Americans in poverty.
AAA credit rating gone.
Real gross domestic product, increased at an annual rate of 2.2 percent in the first quarter of 2012 down from 3% last quarter.
Do we have a budget???????

Yes, for no reason aside from personal. I see this thread no different than the one speaking about gay marriage. Is it 1984 yet?

Being that "Barack Hussein Obama" guy tends to indicate you're not interested in informed discussion.

But let's look at your math, hmmm?

Quote:

Over 1 million more Unemployed Americans.

Than when? This is contextless. If you mean since he was inaugurated, sure. Unemployment peaked about nine months after his inauguration, at 10%, and has been down ever since.

Quote:

Unemployement rate close to 9%.

8.1% isn't "close to 9%".

Quote:

Gas prices up over 80%.

This is largely due to a massive spike downwards in gas prices in 2009. (Can't imagine why.) 2011 average gas prices were about 8.3% higher than 2008's gas prices, when inflation is taken into account.

I'm not really interested in doing your research for you for the rest, since you can't be bothered to cite sources, but I did want to pick on the last one.

Quote:

Real gross domestic product, increased at an annual rate of 2.2 percent in the first quarter of 2012 down from 3% last quarter.

Wait, you're comparing quarter-to-quarter numbers, now? I thought you were comparing now to when Obama was inaugurated. The GDP was shrinking when Obama took office (down -6.7% in his first quarter as president, down -8.9% the quarter before). It's been turned around to positive since the end of 2009, and has stayed positive since.

Aretas, this disingenuous abuse of numbers isn't doing much for your case. I'm not much fond of Obama at this point, but I'm even less fond of grandstanding and lying with statistics.

As you continue on your career as a Paizo Messageboard Politroll--and don't protest, I am a proud Politroll and I warmly welcome you to the club--you'll discover that some moderators wield the banhammer with more latitude than others. Ms. Lambertz is one of them. Instead of continuously bizitching about them, learning to work around them might help. As might developing a sense of humor.

I think my associate, Gark the Goblin, had some other pointers for those embarking on a career of Politrolling. I'll see if I can find them for you.

Yes, for no reason aside from personal. I see this thread no different than the one speaking about gay marriage. Is it 1984 yet?

Being that "Barack Hussein Obama" guy tends to indicate you're not interested in informed discussion.

But let's look at your math, hmmm?

Quote:

Over 1 million more Unemployed Americans.

Than when? This is contextless. If you mean since he was inaugurated, sure. Unemployment peaked about nine months after his inauguration, at 10%, and has been down ever since.

Quote:

Unemployement rate close to 9%.

8.1% isn't "close to 9%".

Quote:

Gas prices up over 80%.

This is largely due to a massive spike downwards in gas prices in 2009. (Can't imagine why.) 2011 average gas prices were about 8.3% higher than 2008's gas prices, when inflation is taken into account.

I'm not really interested in doing your research for you for the rest, since you can't be bothered to cite sources, but I did want to pick on the last one.

Quote:

Real gross domestic product, increased at an annual rate of 2.2 percent in the first quarter of 2012 down from 3% last quarter.

Wait, you're comparing quarter-to-quarter numbers, now? I thought you were comparing now to when Obama was inaugurated. The GDP was shrinking when Obama took office (down -6.7% in his first quarter as president, down -8.9% the quarter before). It's been turned around to positive since the end of 2009, and has stayed positive since.

Aretas, this disingenuous abuse of numbers isn't doing much for your case. I'm not much fond of Obama at this point, but I'm even less fond of grandstanding and lying with statistics.

The numbers are pretty conservative. Great reply though! Text book even!

Yes, for no reason aside from personal. I see this thread no different than the one speaking about gay marriage. Is it 1984 yet?

Being that "Barack Hussein Obama" guy tends to indicate you're not interested in informed discussion.

But let's look at your math, hmmm?

Quote:

Over 1 million more Unemployed Americans.

Than when? This is contextless. If you mean since he was inaugurated, sure. Unemployment peaked about nine months after his inauguration, at 10%, and has been down ever since.

Quote:

Unemployement rate close to 9%.

8.1% isn't "close to 9%".

Quote:

Gas prices up over 80%.

This is largely due to a massive spike downwards in gas prices in 2009. (Can't imagine why.) 2011 average gas prices were about 8.3% higher than 2008's gas prices, when inflation is taken into account.

I'm not really interested in doing your research for you for the rest, since you can't be bothered to cite sources, but I did want to pick on the last one.

Quote:

Real gross domestic product, increased at an annual rate of 2.2 percent in the first quarter of 2012 down from 3% last quarter.

Wait, you're comparing quarter-to-quarter numbers, now? I thought you were comparing now to when Obama was inaugurated. The GDP was shrinking when Obama took office (down -6.7% in his first quarter as president, down -8.9% the quarter before). It's been turned around to positive since the end of 2009, and has stayed positive since.

Aretas, this disingenuous abuse of numbers isn't doing much for your case. I'm not much fond of Obama at this point, but I'm even less fond of grandstanding and lying with statistics.

@ White Knife put your Pom Poms down, mmmmk.

Citing Jackie Calmes? She's riding down that downward spiral with Obama. How about some unbiased sources.

Would you like another serving of QE2? I'm sure you would.

Even if it were a legit number, the 8.1% unemployment rate, released by the Labor Department, would be simply terrible and unacceptable. It would still extend the longest streak of 8% plus unemployment since the Great Depression. The U.S. economy hasn’t been below 8% unemployment since Obama took office in January 2009. And back in May 2007, unemployment was just 4.4%.

But, unfortunately, the true measure of U.S. unemployment is much, much worse. If the size of the U.S. labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office 65.7% then vs. 63.9% today the U-3 unemployment rate would be 10.8%.

Then there’s the broader, U-6 measure of unemployment which includes the discouraged plus part-timers who wish they had full time work. That unemployment rate, perhaps the truest measure of the labor market’s health, is still a sky-high 14.9%.

Recall that back in 2009, White House economists Jared Bernstein and Christina Romer used their old-fashioned Keynesian model to predict how the $800 billion stimulus would affect employment. According to their model—as displayed in the above chart, updated—unemployment should be around 6% today.

I'm going to go outside now and have me some fun....I'm going to have me some fun.....going to have me some fun.....going to have me some fun.

As the last thread was locked (for no discernible reason imo), please discuss extra politely.

Yes, for no reason aside from personal. I see this thread no different than the one speaking about gay marriage. Is it 1984 yet?

I believe the economy SHOULD be talked about vs "values" b/c people on the left including President Obama know the economy stinks.
I agree that values are important, but I don't think that Obama's "values" are anything like most Americans' values.

From inauguration day:

Over 1 million more Unemployed Americans.
Unemployement rate close to 9%.
Gas prices up over 80%.
Federal debt up 43%.
College tuitions up 25%.
Workers health insurance cost up 20%.
Food stamp recipient up 45%.
Over 6 Million more Americans in poverty.
AAA credit rating gone.
Real gross domestic product, increased at an annual rate of 2.2 percent in the first quarter of 2012 down from 3% last quarter.
Do we have a budget???????

You may wish to familiarize yourself with the different between correlation and causation.

Not only did the Democrat Congress tell them to, they threatened to shut them down if they didn't give the loans... Thank you Barney Frank and the Democrat majority, oh yeah lets not forget that in 2005 Bush's econ advisers told his admin that this was a fiasco waiting to happen and when he put it to the democrat congress...they ignored the warnings... but keep on blaming bush...who btw I never voted for...but I also don't believe in passing the buck like the Dems do

Of course that's what I meant.
I did not at all assume that Irontruth was exaggerating, and means to in fact say that congress told people to do the exact things he's talking about, without any degree of variance.

I did not at all assume that Irontruth was exaggerating, and means to in fact say that congress told people to do the exact things he's talking about, without any degree of variance.

/end sarcasm.

So exactly which law passed by Congress are you referring to?

I will admit that Congress did allow the meltdown to happen, by choosing not to regulate derivatives and relaxing regulation of the financial sector over the last few decades, but I doubt that's what you meant.

At President Clinton’s direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.

The threat was codified in a 20-page “Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending” and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining.

The edict — completely overlooked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the mainstream media — was signed by then-HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Attorney General Janet Reno, Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, along with the heads of six other financial regulatory agencies. …

The unusual full-court press was predicated on a Boston Fed study showing mortgage lenders rejecting blacks and Hispanics in greater proportion than whites. The author of the 1992 study, hired by the Clinton White House, claimed it was racial “discrimination.” But it was simply good underwriting.

It took private analysts, as well as at least one FDIC economist, little time to determine the Boston Fed study was terminally flawed. In addition to finding embarrassing mistakes in the data, they concluded that more relevant measures of a borrower’s credit history — such as past delinquencies and whether the borrower met lenders credit standards — explained the gap in lending between whites and blacks, who on average had poorer credit and higher defaults.

The study did not take into account a host of other relevant data factoring into denials, including applicants’ net worth, debt burden and employment record. Other variables, such as the size of down payments and the amount of the loans sought to the value of the property being bought, also were left out of the analysis. It also failed to consider whether the borrower submitted information that could not be verified, the presence of a cosigner and even the loan amount.

When these missing data were factored in, it became clear that the rejection rates were based on legitimate business decisions, not racism.

“I hear your complaints,” Bloomberg said. “Some of them are totally unfounded. It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp. Now, I’m not saying I’m sure that was terrible policy, because a lot of those people who got homes still have them and they wouldn’t gave gotten them without that.

“But they were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if you will. They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody. And now we want to go vilify the banks because it’s one target, it’s easy to blame them and congress certainly isn’t going to blame themselves. At the same time, Congress is trying to pressure banks to loosen their lending standards to make more loans. This is exactly the same speech they criticized them for.”

Actually it wasn't the Democratic Congress that "told them to." It was the steady dismantling of regulation championed by all of the Reaganite Revolutionaries who kept insisting that "the market could police themselves." that pretty much removed the restrictions from the wild speculation and general hooliganism which followed.

The Wall Street and Housing Market meltdowns are essentially the Neo-Conservative program in action. You demanded that government regulation be stripped away from the process. And you got it.

Later, after everything had come to an end, an Ameriquest loan officer named Christopher Warren—who, like Bob, worked in the Sacramento office—posted a rambling confession online about his years in the mortgage business. Of his three years at Ameriquest, where he said he started as a teenager, he wrote: “[M]y managers and handlers taught me the ins and outs of mortgage fraud, drugs, sex, and money, money and more money. My friend and manager handed out crystal methamphetamine to loan officers in a bid to keep them up and at work longer hours. At any given moment inside the restrooms, cocaine and meth was being snorted by my estimates [by] more than a third of the staff, and more than half the staff [was] manipulating documents to get loans to fund, and more than 75 percent just made completely false statements . . . A typical welcome aboard gift was a pair of scissors, tape and white out. . . .” He left, he said, with the personal information of 680,000 Ameriquest customers to start a company called WTL Financial. His new company, he admitted, faked credit scores, pay stubs, and bank statements in order to sell $810 million in securities backed by his loans. He could get away with it because Wall Street didn’t care.

I don't disagree that government played a role. But do you have an evidence that the government forced Merril Lynch to leverage one of these bad loans 50-1? Wall Street lobbied the government to increase the rate they could leverage their assets and lower how much cash they had to keep. Is it the governments fault that Wall Street lobbied them?

In this regard, I think our politicians were stupid. I think Wall Street was greedy.

The sub-prime lending had it's roots prior to 1994, that document is not the cause of the problem, it is one of the factors though.

I would invite you to read what I've posted, and save the neo-on conspiracy theories for Coast to Coast AM.

So you're saying that the housing crash ONLY happened because blacks and hispanics didn't pay their mortgages? I understand the argument that PEOPLE didn't pay their mortgages, thus tanking the mortgage-backed securities market.

What evidence do you have that the people not paying their mortgages, the precise mortgages bundled as mortgage-backed securities, were the precise people or even groups of people that were "encouraged" by this directive.

Furthermore, and I haven't read the link but merely your quote so forgive me if I don't have all the relevant info, the quote you provided referred to 10 AGENCIES that gave the ultimatum, not congress itself. And at the behest of Clinton. In 1994.

But okay, fair enough, if people would have paid their mortgages thing wouldn't have gotten so hinkey. It's true! However, given that the people packaging these derivatives KNEW they might not pay their mortgages, and given that the ratings agencies HAD TO KNOW those securities ought not to be AAA rated (and were victims of regulatory capture by Goldman-Sachs, and Lehman, et al) but that the actual mortgage holders were completely unaware their mortgages were being packaged as derivatives...who holds the greater (like, by orders of magnitude) portion of the blame? Honestly.

I would invite you to read what I've posted, and save the neo-on conspiracy theories for Coast to Coast AM.

Your account also don't acknowledge the effect of predatory lending. Which several states tried to stop, but the banking industry, backed by the Federal Reserve (who I lay a lot of blame on as well), ended those efforts.

The banks argument was that they were engage in interstate commerce, since the money they were lending came from Wall Street, which got it's money from all over the country, etc, so the states couldn't regulate the industry. The Fed meanwhile did not enforce the few regulations they had and did not give any recommendations to congress to increase regulation.

So, we're back to coked out mortgage brokers, the people who bought loans from them and the ratings agencies who rubber stamped them AAA.

Blaming the people who didn't pay their mortgage for the housing collapse is like betting your paycheck on a horse race and blaming the horse--when you bet on a loser!. It may be true that if that horse had won you'd be doing fine, but the horse didn't know you wouldn't be able to pay your rent.

I think a big problem in the discussion of the subprime mortgage crisis here and irl, is that the camps fall into: blame the Democrats for giving out the loans/blame the Republicans for deregulating finance.

I, personally, think the camps should be: poor people who got f%&~ed over by predatory lending and/or taxpayers who had to foot the bill for the bailout/rich people who profitted immensely from the aforementioned and the Republicrats who bipartisanlly helped them by deregulating finance and bailing them out.

In this regard, I have seen very little that indicates that Obama is much different than Bush. [Cough-cough-Timothy Geithner-cough]

Apparently you can't discuss Obama's record without bringing up what Romney may or may not do better or worse, or what Bush did before him.

Even in evaluation, he can not stand on his own merit. :P

I think the word you're looking for is "context". When someone tries to turn a contextual evaluation into an example of failing to stand on their own merit, they're not here for honest discussion. They're here to push a viewpoint with distortion, because honesty wouldn't allow them to hold that view.

So here's my overarching theory about Obama's presidency. His promise was, more than any other single issue, the promise of a change in the way politics worked in Washington. He promised he would compromise and work with Republican leadership to get things done, and part of this has been staying neutral on issues like gay marriage, going back on the promise to pull out of guantanamo, etc. The first at least 2 years of his presidency was marked with constantly trying to sit down and hammer out political compromises.

But, if his campaign promise is to compromise, and he successfully compromises (even if that means giving up ground on a Democratic ideal) then he can declare victory. So, to rob him of that victory, Republican leadership has decided that compromise is no longer even a political option.

So here's my overarching theory about Obama's presidency. His promise was, more than any other single issue, the promise of a change in the way politics worked in Washington. He promised he would compromise and work with Republican leadership to get things done, and part of this has been staying neutral on issues like gay marriage, going back on the promise to pull out of guantanamo, etc. The first at least 2 years of his presidency was marked with constantly trying to sit down and hammer out political compromises.

But, if his campaign promise is to compromise, and he successfully compromises (even if that means giving up ground on a Democratic ideal) then he can declare victory. So, to rob him of that victory, Republican leadership has decided that compromise is no longer even a political option.

I blame Republican douchebaggery as much as I blame Obama's naivate.

I blame the Republican douchebaggery far more than Obama for believing that things can be better. Things could be better, but the Republican party is more interested in making Obama's presidency look like a failure than they are in improving their own country.

When it comes to judging where the problem lies, ask yourself these questions:

1. Were Obama not in office and the Republican party in complete control, would the country be moving in a direction you favor?

2. Were Obama in office and the Republican party completely gone, would the country be moving in a direction you favor?

3. And if the answer to neither of the above two questions is "Yes," which of the two groups has made an effort to compromise, and which has ignored that effort?

Neither side is interested in compromise and both parties are bleeding moderates making compromise even less likely in the future.

And while Obama promised to work with Republicans during the campaign, you can't blame him for not following through when the election gave him a super majority for a short time (until Massachusetts voiced their opinion on what the super majority was doing). Unfortunately, that first year set the tone and made compromise nearly impossible afterwards.

The Democratic party regularly bends over backwards (and often just rolls over) to reach a compromise with the Republican party. The Republican party does not want compromise. They do not want everyone to be involved in the process. They do not want a discussion of opinions. They have their goals, and they will accept no action which does not further them.

I think that the Bush Administrations focus on deregulation lead to the lack of oversight in the banking industry that allowed for the complete collapse of the housing and financial markets.

I think Obama inherited the worst economy since either the Great Depression or what Nixon handed Gerald Ford and has been fighting with Congress to pass stimulus and jobs bills with little success, since the Senate Minority Leader has said that his #1 job is to make Obama a one term president.

I think General Motors would be gone if McCain had won, and I think we would be far worse off than we are now.

When they speak of "deeming" things to have passed, that is not a compromise.

Non-recess recess appointments are not compromise.

The first is fairly standard practice:

US News and World Report wrote:

The American Enterprise Institute's Norm Ornstein, a certified congressional expert but no liberal, puts current GOP hypocrisy into perspective, writing that he can't "recall a level of feigned indignation nearly as great as what we are seeing now" from Republicans and their media allies over reconciliation and "deem and pass." The GOP used self-executing rules 35 times in 2005-2006 alone (the last time the Republicans ran the House). Back then Democrats sued to end the practice and the GOP defended it in court. Ornstein asks: "Is there no shame any more?" Well ... no.

The second is more controversial, but was used in the face of unprecedented opposition. The Senate Minority leader was on record as opposing any nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Should the minority party be allowed to shut down departments be refusing to confirm any nominee?

Obama = $5 Trillion more national debt ( with an additional 1.3 Trillion this year and no end to rising debt anywhere in sight), 3+ years of over 8% unemployment (the longest since the Great Depression), a Democratic Party controlled Senate which hasn't even passed a budget in two years-forcing the nation to operate from one fiscal crisis to another. This is just a short list of his failings. He came to the Presidency with little experience in running anything: and his administration has been a major disaster. God save the United States if he is re-elected.